|
|
|
  |
| Sunday, 26 December 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
UNP courts dogs by H. L. D. Mahindapala When Ranil Wickremesinghe leads dogs to his demonstrations as symbols of protest against the Supreme Court he is not degrading the Courts but his own brand of politics. He is openly and unabashedly announcing to the world that the UNP has gone to the dogs. Besides, if, as the UNPers claim, the word balu is not an offensive term then it follows logically that the UNP too can be categorized as a balu party of balu leaders. However, they contradict their definition of balu as a respectable or acceptable word when they lead dogs decked in anti-Court posters to their demonstration. The message in their balu act was that they treat the courts like pariahs. Though the UNP may not have that respect for dogs and courts the people historically have displayed great respect for both dogs and courts - two of man's best friends and protectors. At the core of this balu attack led by the UNP against the Supreme Court is the meaning and translation of this term. A literal translation would be canine. But the mot juste is contained in the English word contemptible. The word balu Politically and semantically, the word balu was defined explicitly by S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, the founding father of the SLFP, after his return from Oxford. When a reporter asked him why he donned the Western suit to take his dogs to the dog show he replied without batting an eyelid: Balu wadey-ta yanakota, balu andu-men thamai yanna o-nah! (When you go to a canine show you must wear the canine suit!). What is missing in cold print is the contempt that dripped with the inflexion of his voice. Both in the classical and the colloquial sense it expresses nothing but contempt. In the minds of the Sri Lankans there is no doubt about the meaning of the word balu though the UNPers are now juggling crudely to give it a meaning that would white-wash their convicted National Organiser, S. B. Dissanayake. The political furore over the word balu is symptomatic of the level to which national politics has descended. It signifies that the UNP, a mainstream party, is prepared to accept any balu meaning, adopt any balu tactic, any balu leader to survive in politics. If the UNP is that desperate to defend balu as an acceptable or respectable term will there be any values left in national politics? If their highest form of political expression is to dress up dogs with anti-court slogans how can they expect the citizens to accept judgments delivered on their legislation by courts? When in power the UNP has passed legislation on practically every aspect of society each of which is likely to be tested, interpreted and enforced by the judgments of the courts. If the people decide to follow the UNP example and dismiss judgments passed on their legislation as balu theenduwas where will it leave the UNP? If the UNP big-wigs are given the right to reject court decisions as balu theenduwas the people too should be empowered with the same right. Last refuge Whether one likes it or not, the last refuge for justice in the land is not the UNP or its drum-beaters in the media but the courts. When sections of the media and the leading opposition party join hands to denigrate the courts both parties are colluding to debase the primary source of justice. The UNP has a right to challenge any decision of the court but not in a contemptible language. Once again UNP is crying foul because the umpire has given them out. To divert attention from their own follies, the UNP is crying from roof tops that the judgment is a move to muzzle the freedom of speech. There is, however, no substantial evidence either in the two court cases against S. B. Dissanayake or in the pattern of the judgments delivered by the Courts to establish this accusation. The bench of five judges, which includes Dr. Shirani Bandaranayaka, a former member of the Law Faculty of the Colombo University when G. L. Peiris was its Vice-Chancellor, has made it abundantly clear in their judgment that it is not against reasoned criticism challenging the decisions of the court in courteous language. Once Justice T. S. Fernando, a fiercely independent judge, remarked from the bench that the freedom of speech is not the freedom of the asses. He was referring to a claim by a Lake House journalist that he was merely exercising his right of free speech. In the case of S. B. Dissanayake, Justice Fernando's terminology can be rephrased to say that the freedom demanded by the UNP legal eagles cannot be extended to mean the balu freedom for every dog to bark irrationally and abusively at decisions and verdicts that go against them. G. L. Peiris, predictably, is citing far-fetched legal excuses to explain why his leader, S. B. Dissanayake should not be jailed for scandalizing the court. Obviously, in manufacturing excuses for his leader he is motivated by getting his convicted political leader out of jail rather than defending the highest principles of law. He is attempting desperately to impose his arbitrary definition of the law on the courts. And his definition simply amounts to this: his convicted leader should be placed above the law even though he is a habitual offender. His politicized definition may be valid for his leader and his party loyalists. But he and his other leader, Ranil Wickremesinghe, are barking up the wrong tree. They are attempting to rescue a convict who on his own admission had pleaded guilty to the charges. This negates their argument that he is a political prisoner. After the admission in court by convict Dissanayake, how can they argue that it was a politically motivated act? No one has forced convict Dissanayake to confess. He did it voluntarily. It defies reason as to why the UNP leaders and their legal pundits should attribute political motives when their National Organiser has admitted in court that he is guilty of scandalising courts. UNP fantasies If the UNP thinks that the people will rise in revolt to rescue S. B. Dissanayake they got another think coming. The UNP has picked the wrong cause of the wrong man. Dissanayake is neither the symbol of justice nor democracy. Neither democracy nor freedom of speech will be threatened by making Dissanayake serve his sentence. Besides, it was Ranil Wickremesinghe who demanded that S. B. Dissanayake should be jailed when he was charged by the courts on the first occasion. Then Dissanayake was on the other side. Now that he is on his side he is demanding that the entire legal system be changed to serve his convicted National Organiser. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
